[arcturus17]

Yet another article that defends this thesis with very little rigor, in my opinion.

Understated hypothesis #1: Software engineers make good tech CEOs because they know the core product/service they are delivering. This is not new to tech - many organizations, such as big traditional engineering (industrial, electrical, aerospace, etc.) or successful law firms are often led by former practitioners (ie, engineers and lawyers respectively). Leaders who know their domain and processes intimately are bound to get better better results on average than those who don't.

Understated hypothesis #2: Engineering likely selects for individuals that are highly intelligent.

All these other ideas of software engineers leading businesses more creatively or efficiently (through process automation, etc) may be hypotheses worth testing, but certainly not foregone conclusions as some of these articles seem to suggest.

I think I'd have much less of a problem if articles like these formulated questions ("could it be that...?") instead of assertions. Discussions would be equally interesting, the style of the text needn't suffer, and I would respect the authors more for their intellectual rigor.